The good thing is that unlike the Hillarycare process of 1993, we don’t have 500 people in a room hiding in a room trying to write the magic bill that’s gonna go through on an up or down vote. We actually have a process underway where lots and lots of different players have a real opportunity to have input. And I think in that sense this is already a healthier process than we saw in 1993, and a more open process.

is the more troubling quote.

What kind of delusion was he engaging in to believe Obamacare was a "healthy process"?

First, they offered free health care, and I didn't speak up because they weren't taking my money to pay for it.Then, they offered free college, and I didn't speak up because they weren't taking my money to pay for it.Then, they offered free housing, food, and clothes, and when they came to me to pay for it, there was no one left to speak for me...

This really gets to the bottom of why government should not be in the medical business. Once you move responsibility from the individual to the government the government will inevitably have to take an authoritarian position (or accept eventual bankruptcy).

Newt's reaction may seem like the only solutiuon to a bad set of choices, but those choices are limited by our previous decisions. When you get to a point where this kind of authoritarianism seems the best option you need to rethink the circumstances. This is particularly revealing for Newt because his habit of not accepting the premise or challenging the question in debates did not translate to policy in this case.

This is a huge failure. I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I'll still be glad the day Newt throws in the towel.

"Actually, the idea as you know came from conservatives at the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and the idea was this we have today in this country an insistence — insistence that government does treat people. That people that don’t have insurance are given free care by government."

Which is why we shouldn't vote for Newt. His conversion to the anti-mandate side is questionable.

Or Romney, who actually implemented a similar plan.

Actually they are all dissimilar to Obama in a qualitatively different way. I don't believe any of the current crop of republicans would have jammed that health care bill over the opposition of the majority of the public the way Obama did. And they would have never structured it the way the dems did with government control, nor could republican ever have gotten away with financing it with a half trillion dollars ripped smooth out of Medicare the way Obama did.

No matter what anyone says, none of the republicans running would have or could have nationalized health care the way Obama did.

But as I've said before, I don't trust any of them to overturn it either. None of them seem to have ever had the idea that it isn't the business of government to solve every single problem on the planet, and that was Reagan's core philosophy.

If the so called "free riders" pay insurance premiums then indeed do not access healthcare that year, and have ZERO unpaid bills, then you refund their money to them.

Works for me!

I would ALSO apply that to Medicare premiums that we are forced to pay as well. If you do not use medical services when eligible for Medicare you get an annual rebate of premiums previously paid and deduction on future premiums.

This would discourage over use and abuse of the system.

Since I don't use any medical services with the exception of a physical check up every couple of years and mammo gram about every 3 or 4 years. No prescriptions and I pay cash for my medical, dental needs and eyeglasses.....WINNING!!

"If the so called "free riders" pay insurance premiums then indeed do not access healthcare that year, and have ZERO unpaid bills, then you refund their money to them."

This doesn't solve the fiscal problem. The point of insurance is that everyone pays and a minority use. If the non-users are refunded then those who use either pay the full cost themselves or government pays all amounts expended for any individual over the premium that person paid.

However, she who cannot be named ;-) has an excellent point. There are plenty of free riders already in the system, (illegal aliens, indigent, welfare generations) who don't pay any premiums or carry insurance now and NEVER WILL PAY a single dime.

The rest of us who have jobs and pay our taxes are already carrying these leeches on our backs.

Why in HELL should I pay for insurance if I don't want to when there are already millions upon millions of people who don't and won't and never will?

"Why in HELL should I pay for insurance if I don't want to when there are already millions upon millions of people who don't and won't and never will?"

I don't think you should have to, I'm just pointing out the "solution" offered isn't workable. "Insurance" with a refundable premium isn't insurance. Under this solution you pay those health costs in taxes instead of a premium, so how does the plan advance your preference?

How is this any different from what Romney did in Mass.? He's still defending it and yet you're voting for him. Very strange. At least Newt only talked about it, Romney *did* it and it inspired Obama to do the same thing on a national scale (something Romney used to say he supported as well). Seems like a pretty weak hit on Gingrich to me.

I'm no Santorum fan, but he's right about this. It'll be pretty silly to nominate the guy who inspired Obamacare and have him turn around and attack it. If you think Romney can't get any more disengenuous, this would be a great way to find out.

Think of this like a lottery. You're proposing those who don't win get their money back. If that happens where does the money for the prize come from?

The answer is taxes, so we're back to forced payment. The proposal is no different than the current (unacceptable) circumstance, except that it's less transparent and more manipulable. It's politically easier for Democrats to force the middle class to pay proportionally more income tax than it would be to set differential premiums for the same service. The final result would be a larger burden on the middle class due to medical costs.

"Insurance" with a refundable premium isn't insurance. Under this solution you pay those health costs in taxes instead of a premium, so how does the plan advance your preference?

Insurance is an assessment of risk.

If I am healthy I may asses my risk as low and decide not to purchase insurance. If I take this course of action and have a catastrophe.....tough. Too bad for me. I guessed wrong. Why should it be your responsibility to pay my way? It isn't.

If YOU want to support me in this first case then that should be YOUR decision.

If I am healthy and decide to purchase insurance the company will asses my risk to them as low and grant me lower premiums.

If I'm not healthy the risk to the insurance company is higher and the coverage is priced accordingly or decide that the risk it too big and deny coverage.

THAT is insurance.

Truth be told,once you take the underwriting out of it, and "guarantee" coverage despite pre-existing conditions, it's not really insurance at all anymore. It's ... sicker than socialism really. It's ... for-profit confiscation into the hands of private companies.

The good thing is that unlike the Hillarycare process of 1993, we don’t have 500 people in a room hiding in a room trying to write the magic bill that’s gonna go through on an up or down vote. We actually have a process underway where lots and lots of different players have a real opportunity to have input. And I think in that sense this is already a healthier process than we saw in 1993, and a more open process.

Oh, boy. I was a young doctor just out of residency when Hillarycare was being penned. I remember my Congressman came to our town and held town meetings about it before voting on it. I wrote him a letter and he even called me to discuss my opinion. And he was a Democrat.

With Obamacare the only "players" involved were the lobbyists - from the hospital industry, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. The AMA was there, too, but they were played for suckers. Compared to Hillarycare, the Obamacare process was completely in the dark from the voting public. Remember the Democrats running from any discussion of it in town hall meetings all over the country? They really didn't know what was in it until they passed it.

Pffft to Newt. A man as smart as he is supposed to be should have known better. (Or was he working for one of those lobbyist "players" at the time?)

wv: "lother" When it comes to our politicians, I'm becoming a "lother"

I'm not missing the point at all, you need to take your analysis to the next level. You think you are proposing a solution that is voluntary, but in reality you are not. If your proposal were to become policy the government will pay those costs out of taxes. So unless you're claiming taxes are voluntary you haven't overcome your own objection with your policy.

JAC noted a great point last week from, I think, Romney: The tax code that allows businesses to write off health care expenses for employees is at the root of this problem. Why should jobs provide health insurance?

Didn't GM sort of cement this as an institutional thing? Or was it WWII war industry jobs? If I remember correctly, those wages/salaries were capped so employers needed other ways of attracting good people.

If the so called "free riders" pay insurance premiums then indeed do not access healthcare that year, and have ZERO unpaid bills, then you refund their money to them."

I'm simply pointing out that this specific element doesn't accomplish what you would like it to. In fact it might be worse around the edges because income taxes are the Democrats primary redistribution funding tool. Until you remove the payment requirement from the government you're only changing how the funds are collected, not whether they are collected. Whether they are collected determines whether our payment is voluntary or not.

I understand you don't think you should be forced to pay for others medical. But that preference doesn't effect whether this specific element actually creates a voluntary choice.

"Mary said..."If your proposal were to become policy the government will pay those costs out of taxes. "

At some point, the people will simply vote out those politicians who make financial promises they cannot keep."

I'd like to believe this is true, but Obama's election doesn't support that from my perspective. His entire appeal was "I'll get you stuff and stick 'the rich' with the bill". And he won.

It seems to me there is a large constituency who votes for whichever politician promises and then delivers the most graft. And similar to the old union towns even those who don't directly benefit will support it if they have a family member or enough friends effected.

I'll grant that to a point, but Romney is a special case, isn't he? After all, he didn't just vote for this or campaign against that, he signed the inspiration for Obamacare into law, then touted it as a national solution for health care. It was only recently that he edited that stuff out of his book and his public discourse.

Romney would be just another politician doing what you described if he'd said that what he did was the wrong approach or that it didn't work. Instead, he's doubled down on it and said he's proud of the law and that it does work. Romney fans like Ann should probably not ding Gingrich for something like this if they aren't going to press their candidate on it as well.

I have come to the belief that Romneycare is best considered a complete non-issue in the Republican campaign. It MAY be one in the general election if SCOTUS fails to rule Obamacare unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds..as well as launch a huge Tea Party resurgence to gain power to legislatively limit the powers of the Federal government - because if they can shove Obamacare on the states under the commerce clause they can shove ANYTHING on the states, take away any State Powers under similar reasoning.

But as things stand....it doesn't bother me at all if Maine decides to pass Romneycare Rev2, or Hawaii falls so in love with Obamacare that they pass a faithful state version of it. As it stands - Romney saying he would do a waiver letting each State decide whatever plan they want - be it Romneycare, Obamacare, the Big Pharma plan, the Afghanistan Zerocare model - its all good with me.

I actually object to Santorum saying he hates Romneycare so much that he would try and end it everywhere as a power of the Federal executive.Why?The liberals in Mass like it 3-1. Santorum and Newt are both people that see solutions coming from DC. Santorum adds other stuff that he is "morally compelled" to act when States add features like morning after pills, abortion, "Freedom!! Killing!! Mandates!!"But that just substitutes a right wing theocrat trampling on the 10th Amendment for the present Obamite/Pelosi socialist approach.

I am actually most comfortable with Romney - he has actually delved deep into the nuts and bolts of health insurance, heathcare - devised something his constituents were happy with but something he says is NOT ideal for many other States, will not force anything on them, and knows the flaws of Romneycare and has some lessons learned.The exponentially rising costs of healthcare as a national problem threatening our financial solvency will not go away by ignoring them. If it properly goes to States, they have to figure out how to lower drug prices and overall costs by 50% to get America in line with the costs seen in advanced European and Asian nations.

Romney, IMO, is the best choice to honor the 10th Amendment and work with all parties to lower costs...and to let the States and all the stakeholders in 50 different "test laboratories" devise improvements.

If the so called "free riders" pay insurance premiums then indeed do not access healthcare that year, and have ZERO unpaid bills, then you refund their money to them."

"Fair enough"?

====================Good luck on that idea, and getting a complete refund each year from your auto and home insurers for each year you do not make a policy claim.

Also, good luck on getting a homeowners "free rider" system where it is all about Freedom!!! and you can call a home insurer from your cell phone outside your burning 300,000.00 home to let them know you are now willing to pay that 800 a year you have avoided participating in the risk pool for 25 years and funded an extra vacation each year from avoiding paying homeowners out of a sense of Freedom-Loving!!

Cedarford @1:05 puts it well. It's about states' rights for me; I thought most conservatives cared about that. Newt was for a federal mandate; Romney never was. Why should the POTUS or anyone else strip the citizens of MA of something they voted for and clearly want, even now? In its own way that's as much of a peremptory top-down imposition as Obamacare.

I'll grant that to a point, but Romney is a special case, isn't he? After all, he didn't just vote for this or campaign against that, he signed the inspiration for Obamacare into law, then touted it as a national solution for health care. It was only recently that he edited that stuff out of his book and his public discourse. Not true, what Jim is referring to is a difference between the hardcover and softcover edition and here is what Romney wrote in the original hardcover edition. "My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition."What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It's portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

The only thing edited was the last line which reads "[a]nd it was done without government taking over health care” in the softcover edition. It’s pretty clear from the context that Romney was arguing for State-level solutions to fixing health care (along with allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across State lines) which is what he ran on in 2008 and is running on again in 2012.

It would take me years and years to accumulate enough medical bills to justify that monthly expense.

At 2400 a month, this tells us that you have a plan that covers everything under the sun with very little deductible.

Unless you KNOW, that you or someone in your family has a serious medical condition that could arise in the future......why in the world are you throwing your money away like that?

You could for a fraction buy a catastrophic coverage plan and pay cash for the small and ordinary health care instances. Just get coverage for those big ticket items or those things like pregnancy coverage that you think you might actually use.

Or....you could until ObamaCare takes that option away from you.

Instead of $2400, pay $1200 and bank the remaining $1200 monthly. In less than one year you would have the $10,000 deductible banked. Each year after that is gravy.

$14,000 annually for 15 years with compound interest would go a long way towards covering those small out of pocket bills and your catastrophic coverage plan would handle the big stuff.

If only there were a program something like that...Oh...wait.....we have it. An HSA plan!. Soon to be eliminated by Obama.

In the universe in which I'm typing this comment, the two things you mentioned already happen. If you're suggesting they don't happen frequently enough nor in large enough numbers to cover everyone we currently need covered, I would suggest that in the hard libertarian universe you postulate, there would a quite a few less "needy" as there would be no cultures of entitlement or victimhood.

Get off your high horse. I'm a retired financial advisor and former insurance agent. I don't know you and you aren't my client.

However, I KNOW what a policy costs and unless you have ....as I have already stated... pre existing conditions or know that you are going to develop a serious condition, you are throwing your money away.

AND with that type of expenditure, you are better off financially to purchase a catastrophic plan or one that only covers the instances that you need and bank the money.

I decided to stay off it. With you and Mary occupying it I thought three might be too many.

It's interesting though that you can claim you know my circumstances well enough to judge (and you're wrong) and use the phrase "on your high horse", but manage to not apply it to yourself.

Further, not only am I not throwing money away but even if I were it has nothing to do with anything under discussion. I think you should try to figure out why you're making an idiot of yourself attacking something that doesn't even pertain to the discussion.

Marshall might have a lot of dependents or live in an area with higher insurance costs/limited choices, or be in a situation (self employed/small employer) in which he does not benefit from a large association and their discounted insurance rates. I don't find his quote that outrageous. About ten years ago, my family of six would have cost $1700 per month with no pre-existing conditions with the biggest insurer in our area. Since the premiums around here go up about 15% per year, I imagine it would be around Marshall's quote now.

You think interest rates are always going to be this low? Did you forget the Carter years interest rates? 18% + for a house loan. 23% for a personal unsecured loan or a car loan. 10 year bank certificates of deposit at 8% or more. Fixed annuities at 10%???

Happy days are going to be here again. Don't forget to dust off your polyester suits!!